COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNIQUE AUTOFELTS (P) LTD.

ITA/445/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080438200817 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made specific queries regarding the increase in share capital and received a detailed reply from the assessee, including confirmations from share applicants (like Kinetic Capital Services Ltd.) and copies of their bank statements and income tax return acknowledgments. The AO was satisfied with this material and did not deem it proper to make any disallowance. Similarly, for the unsecured loan from Shri Pramod Khurana, the AO had examined the provided account copies and Shri Khurana's income tax return acknowledgment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had applied his mind and examined the material before him. Therefore, the Commissioner's order, which was based on the erroneous assumption that the AO had not applied his mind, was set aside. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the power under Section 263 could only be exercised where the AO's view was erroneous, and the Commissioner must consider all relevant facts. As the Tribunal's finding was not perverse, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal, appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT had quashed an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner had invoked Section 263 to cancel an assessment order made under Section 143(3) and a rectification order under Section 154 for the assessment year 2001-02, directing a de novo assessment. The assessee, M/s Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd., is a manufacturer of fabrics for export. The Commissioner's action was based on the belief that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not properly examined the increase in share capital due to share application money and an unsecured loan from Shri Pramod Khurana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in quashing the impugned order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal? Assessee's Contention (as inferred from Tribunal's findings): The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer had duly applied his mind, made specific inquiries regarding the increase in share capital and unsecured loans, and examined the documents provided, including confirmations from share applicants and Shri Pramod Khurana, along with their bank statements and income tax return acknowledgments. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 because the share capital had increased, and the assessee failed to produce the shareholders with their bank statements. The Revenue also contended that the AO failed to draw an adverse inference regarding the unsecured loan from Shri Pramod Khurana, thus justifying the exercise of power under Section 263.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 17 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal ......Appellant Vs. M/s Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. 250-251, Sector 29, HUDA, Paniapt. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,”the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' Delhi passed in ITA No. 43/Del/2006 dated 31.7.2007 for the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise the following substantial question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in quashing the impugned order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal?”

2.

The assessee is dealing in manufacturing of fabrics for export. Assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and thereafter order [2] of ratification under Section 154 of the A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →